diff mbox

[v3,2/7] pwm: rockchip: Remove the judge from return value of pwm_config

Message ID 1502206715-24174-3-git-send-email-david.wu@rock-chips.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

David Wu Aug. 8, 2017, 3:38 p.m. UTC 
It seems the rockchip_pwm_config always returns the result 0,
so remove the judge.

Signed-off-by: David Wu <david.wu@rock-chips.com>
Acked-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 12 ++----------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Comments

Thierry Reding Aug. 18, 2017, 3:32 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 11:38:30PM +0800, David Wu wrote:
> It seems the rockchip_pwm_config always returns the result 0,
> so remove the judge.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Wu <david.wu@rock-chips.com>
> Acked-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 12 ++----------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

I don't understand what the "judge" is supposed to be, but I've applied
this to for-4.14/drivers anyway. Thanks.

Thierry
Brian Norris Aug. 18, 2017, 4:28 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 05:32:55PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> I don't understand what the "judge" is supposed to be, but I've applied
> this to for-4.14/drivers anyway. Thanks.

Probably just an artifact of non-native English.

Judging by context, David probably meant more like "Remove the check for
the return value". I believe I've seen other non-native English speakers
use "judge" in a way similar to "check" or "test" in the context of
comparisons and error checking. (A search through my mailbox for "judge"
confirms this.)

Regards,
Brian
David Wu Aug. 21, 2017, 11:29 a.m. UTC | #3 
Hi Thierry,

在 2017/8/19 0:28, Brian Norris 写道:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 05:32:55PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> I don't understand what the "judge" is supposed to be, but I've applied
>> this to for-4.14/drivers anyway. Thanks.
> 
> Probably just an artifact of non-native English.
> 
> Judging by context, David probably meant more like "Remove the check for
> the return value". I believe I've seen other non-native English speakers
> use "judge" in a way similar to "check" or "test" in the context of
> comparisons and error checking. (A search through my mailbox for "judge"
> confirms this.)
> 

Yeap, as Brain said, the "Remove the check for the return value "will be 
better, the "judge" looks like a grammatical error here now.

> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> 
>
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index ac3cd5e..33bbb5a 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@  static void rockchip_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
 	clk_disable(pc->pclk);
 }
 
-static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+static void rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 			       int duty_ns, int period_ns)
 {
 	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
@@ -188,8 +188,6 @@  static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 
 	writel(period, pc->base + pc->data->regs.period);
 	writel(duty, pc->base + pc->data->regs.duty);
-
-	return 0;
 }
 
 static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip,
@@ -236,13 +234,7 @@  static int rockchip_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 		enabled = false;
 	}
 
-	ret = rockchip_pwm_config(chip, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
-	if (ret) {
-		if (enabled != curstate.enabled)
-			rockchip_pwm_enable(chip, pwm, !enabled,
-				      state->polarity);
-		goto out;
-	}
+	rockchip_pwm_config(chip, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
 
 	if (state->enabled != enabled) {
 		ret = rockchip_pwm_enable(chip, pwm, state->enabled,